Dataset Information

Randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology: a bibliometric study.

ABSTRACT: Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are situated at the top of hierarchy of evidence-based medicine, where its number and quality are important in the assessment of quality of evidence in a medical field. In this study, we aim to assess the status of RCTs in Ophthalmology. Methods: On 15 th of May 2019, we performed a PubMed search for randomized controlled trials published in the field of ophthalmology using relevant filters and search terms. We categorized the results into specific topics in ophthalmology according to Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) database classification system. We used Altmetric explorer to identify journals and articles with the highest number of RCTs and highest citations. Results: We found a total of 540,427 publications in the field of ophthalmology, of which only 11,634 (2.15%) of them were RCTs. 'Retinal diseases' was the topic with the highest number of RCTs, followed by 'glaucoma' and 'conjunctival diseases'. The trial with highest number of citations was on retinal diseases. Only around 18% of all ophthalmology RCTs are published in the top 10 ophthalmology journals, with a maximum percentage of RCTs was (5.53%) published in Ophthalmology. Conclusion: RCTs in ophthalmology primarily concern the retina, glaucoma, and a few other sub-topics, with little focus on sclera, orbit, and the eyelids. Most of the high impact RCTs are published in non-ophthalmology journals.

SUBMITTER: AlRyalat SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7156022 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology: a bibliometric study.

AlRyalat Saif Aldeen SA Abukahel Areen A Elubous Khaled Ali KA

F1000Research 20191004

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are situated at the top of hierarchy of evidence-based medicine, where its number and quality are important in the assessment of quality of evidence in a medical field. In this study, we aim to assess the status of RCTs in Ophthalmology. Methods: On 15 th of May 2019, we performed a PubMed search for randomized controlled trials published in the field of ophthalmology using relevant filters and search terms. We categorized ...[more]

PMID: 32318264

Similar Datasets

Project description:A growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated the therapeutic value of yoga interventions. This bibliometric analysis aimed to provide a comprehensive review of the characteristics of the totality of available randomized yoga trials.All RCTs of yoga were eligible. Medline/PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Library, IndMED, and the tables of content of yoga specialty journals not listed in medical databases were screened through February 2014. Bibliometric data, data on participants, and intervention were extracted and analyzed descriptively.Published between 1975 and 2014, a total of 366 papers were included, reporting 312 RCTs from 23 different countries with 22,548 participants. The median study sample size was 59 (range 8-410, interquartile range?=?31, 93). Two hundred sixty-four RCTs (84.6%) were conducted with adults, 105 (33.7%) with older adults and 31 (9.9%) with children. Eighty-four RCTs (26.9%) were conducted with healthy participants. Other trials enrolled patients with one of 63 varied medical conditions; the most common being breast cancer (17 RCTs, 5.4%), depression (14 RCTs, 4.5%), asthma (14 RCTs, 4.5%) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (13 RCTs, 4.2%). Whilst 119 RCTs (38.1%) did not define the style of yoga used, 35 RCTs (11.2%) used Hatha yoga and 30 RCTs (9.6%) yoga breathing. The remaining 128 RCTs (41.0%) used 46 varied yoga styles, with a median intervention length of 9 weeks (range 1 day to 1 year; interquartile range?=?5, 12). Two hundred and forty-four RCTs (78.2%) used yoga postures, 232 RCTs (74.4%) used breath control, 153 RCTs (49.0%) used meditation and 32 RCTs (10.3%) used philosophy lectures. One hundred and seventy-four RCTs (55.6%) compared yoga with no specific treatment; 21 varied control interventions were used in the remaining RCTs.This bibliometric analysis presents the most complete up-to-date overview on published randomized yoga trials. While the available research evidence is sparse for most conditions, there was a marked increase in published RCTs in recent years.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often considered the gold standard and the cornerstone for clinical practice. However, bibliometric studies on worldwide RCTs of ophthalmology published in the 21st century have not been reported in detail yet. This study aims to perform a bibliometric study and visualization analysis of worldwide ophthalmologic RCTs in the 21st century.MethodsGlobal ophthalmologic RCTs from 2000 to 2022 were searched in the Web of Science Core Collection. The number of publications, country/region, institution, author, journal, and research hotspots of RCTs were analyzed using HistCite, VOSviewer, CiteSpace, and Excel software.Results2366 institutions and 90 journals from 83 countries/regions participated in the publication of 1769 global ophthalmologic RCTs, with the United States leading in the number of volumes and research field, and the Moorfields Eye Hospital contributing to the most publications. Ophthalmology received the greatest number of publications and co-citations. Jeffrey S. Heier owned the most publications and Jost B. Jonas owned the most co-citations. The knowledge foundations of global ophthalmologic RCTs were mainly retinopathy, glaucoma, dry eye disease (DED), and cataracts, and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy (ranibizumab), topical ocular hypotensive medication, laser trabeculoplasty. Anti-VEGF therapy for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), DME (diabetic macular edema), and DED, the use of new diagnostic tools, and myopia were the hottest research highlights. Anti-VEGF therapy, prompt laser, triamcinolone, and verteporfin photodynamic therapy for AMD, DME, and CNV (choroidal neovascularization), DED, myopia, and open-angle glaucoma were the research hotspots with the longest duration. The future research hotspots might be DED and the prevention and control of myopia.ConclusionsOverall, the number of global ophthalmologic RCTs in the 21st century was keeping growing, there was an imbalance between the regions and institutions, and more efforts are required to raise the quantity, quality, and global impact of high-quality clinical evidence in developing countries/regions.

Project description:BackgroundBibliometric analysis is a quantitative method which applies mathematical and statistical tools to evaluate the inter-relationships and impacts of publications, authors, institutions and countries in a specific research area. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) are summaries of the best available evidence to address a specific research question via comprehensively literature search, in-depth analysis and synthesis of results. To date, there have been several studies summarizing the publication trends of SRMAs in research specialties, however, none has conducted specifically in ophthalmology. The purpose of this study is to establish the scientometric landscape of SRMAs published in the field of ophthalmology over time.MethodsWe retrieved relevant ophthalmological SRMAs and the corresponding bibliometric parameters during 2000 to 2020 from Web of Science Core Collection. Bibliometric analysis was performed using bibliometrix package. Pre-registration and guideline compliance of each article was independently assessed by two investigators.ResultsA total of 2,660 SRMAs were included, and the average annual growth rate was 21.26%. China and the United States were the most productive countries, while Singapore was the country with the highest average citations per document. Wong TY was not only the most productive, but also the most frequently cited author. The most productive affiliation was National University of Singapore (n = 236). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses output in most subspecialties had steadily increased with retina/vitreous (n = 986), glaucoma (n = 411) and cornea/external diseases (n = 303) constantly as the most dominant fields. Rates of pre-registration and guideline compliance had dramatically increased over time, with 20.0 and 63.5% of article being pre-registered and reported guideline in 2020, respectively. However, SRMAs published on ophthalmology journals tended to be less frequently pre-registered and guideline complied than those on non-ophthalmology journals (both p < 0.001).ConclusionThe annual output of SRMAs has been rapidly increasing over the past two decades. China and the United States were the most productive countries, whereas Singapore has the most prolific and influential scholar and institution. Raising awareness and implementation of SRMAs pre-registration and guideline compliance is still necessary to ensure quality, especially for ophthalmology journals.

Project description:PurposeThe outbreak of COVID-19 has led to a global pandemic with millions of cases and deaths. Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to establish effective therapies. However, the methodological quality of these trials is paramount, as it directly impacts the reliability of results. This systematic review and bibliometric analysis aim to assess the methodological approach, execution diversity, global trends, and distribution of COVID-19 treatment RCTs post-outbreak, covering the period from the second wave and onward up to the present.MethodsWe utilize articles from three electronic databases published from September 1, 2020, to April 1, 2023. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to identify relevant RCTs. Data extraction involved the collection of various study details. Risk of Bias (RoB) 2 tool assessed methodological quality, while implementation variability was evaluated against registration information. Bibliometric analysis, including keyword co-occurrence and country distribution, used VOSviewer and Tableau software.ResultsInitially, 501 studies were identified, but only 22 met the inclusion criteria, of which 19 had registration information. The methodological quality assessment revealed deficiencies in five main domains: randomization process (36%), deviations from intended interventions (9%), missing outcome data (4%), measurement of the outcome (18%), and selection of reported results (4%). An analysis of alignment between research protocols and registration data revealed common deviations in eight critical aspects. Bibliometric findings showcased global collaboration in COVID-19 treatment RCTs, with Iran and Brazil prominently contributing, while keyword co-occurrence analysis illuminated prominent research trends and terms in study titles and abstracts.ConclusionThis study offers valuable insights into the evaluation of COVID-19 treatment RCTs. The scarcity of high-quality RCTs highlights the importance of enhancing trial rigor and transparency in global health emergencies.

Project description:The registration of clinical trials has been promoted to prevent publication bias and increase research transparency. Despite general agreement about the minimum amount of information needed for trial registration, we lack clear guidance on descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions in trial registries. We aimed to evaluate the quality of registry descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education.On 6 May 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the 10 trial registries accessible through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We included trials evaluating an educational intervention (that is, designed to teach or train patients about their own health) and dedicated to participants, their family members or home caregivers. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data related to the description of the experimental intervention, the centers, and the caregivers.We selected 268 of 642 potentially eligible studies and appraised a random sample of 150 records. All selected trials were registered in 4 registers, mainly ClinicalTrials.gov (61%). The median [interquartile range] target sample size was 205 [100 to 400] patients. The comparator was mainly usual care (47%) or active treatment (47%). A minority of records (17%, 95% CI 11 to 23%) reported an overall adequate description of the intervention (that is, description that reported the content, mode of delivery, number, frequency, duration of sessions and overall duration of the intervention). Further, for most reports (59%), important information about the content of the intervention was missing. The description of the mode of delivery of the intervention was reported for 52% of studies, the number of sessions for 74%, the frequency of sessions for 58%, the duration of each session for 45% and the overall duration for 63%. Information about the caregivers was missing for 70% of trials. Most trials (73%) took place in the United States or United Kingdom, 64% involved only one centre, and participating centers were mainly tertiary-care, academic or university hospitals (51%).Educational interventions assessed in ongoing RCTs of educational interventions are poorly described in trial registries. The lack of adequate description raises doubts about the ability of trial registration to help patients and researchers know about the treatment evaluated in trials of education.

Dataset Information

Randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology: a bibliometric study.

Publications

Randomized controlled trials in ophthalmology: a bibliometric study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets